The shipping and cargo moving industry is continually faced with customer demands for new and improved tank vessel designs and for new and improved methods of modifying the design of existing tank vessels. Substantial cost savings can be realized by a vessel owner in modifying or rebuilding existing tank vessels to incorporate improvements in tank vessel designs or otherwise extend the life of the tank vessel rather than paying the cost of building a new tank vessel.
In addition, new governmental and environmental regulations place certain restrictions and requirements on tank vessel owners and operators. These new or required designs must be capable of securely holding a cargo and also of being seaworthy. At the same time, a tank vessel must comply with shipping and environmental requirements and regulations.
Conventional tankers comprise a tank vessel having a single hull design. This type of hull construction provides a single outer hull or skin that provides structural integrity and acts as a boundary between the operating environment of the tanker (e.g., the sea) and the cargo and internal structure of the tanker. The single hull typically includes a shell having a bottom, a port side, a starboard side, a bow, a stern, and a plurality of bulkheads and internal stiffening frames that support and strengthen the shell of the hull.
Tankers are vessels specially designed to carry liquid or fluid-type cargoes, such as petroleum or chemical products. A problem unique to single hull tankers is that damage to the tanker's hull may lead to rupture of the tanker's cargo tanks and thus spill or leakage of the cargo. This results not only in the loss of cargo, but also in pollution of the marine environment and accompanying coastline.
As a result of the recent heightened environmental awareness and several shipping mishaps, new governmental regulations have been implemented requiring the use of double hulls on designated tank vessels in U.S. waters out to the 200 mile economic zone limit. These double hull requirements are contained in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90) and have been incorporated in U.S. Coast Guard regulations. In part, OPA-90 requires that all new tank vessels constructed under contracts awarded after 1990 must have double hulls and that all existing single hull tank vessels engaged in the marine transport of oil and petroleum products be rebuilt with double hulls or be retired between the years 1995 and 2015, depending on the size and age of the tanker. The U.S. rules closely parallel those of the International Maritime Organization, which rules apply worldwide.
This has created a great burden on carriers having existing single hull tankers. These single hull tankers will either have to be rebuilt to incorporate a double hull design at great cost to the carrier, or the tankers will have to be retired, in many cases years before the end of their economically useful life.
Double hull designs have been used in the construction of newer tankers in an effort to comply with the requirements of the OPA-90. These double hull vessels typically have an outer hull and an inner hull. The outer hull and the inner hull each have shell plating that forms the structural integrity of the hull. A combination of transverse and longitudinal framing is provided between the inner and the outer hull to help strengthen the shell plating.
The idea behind a double hull is that the structural integrity of the outer hull may be breached without breaching the inner hull. Therefore, the outer hull may be breached, i.e., opened to the sea, while the cargo would remain securely contained within the inner hull. Thereby, a potential cargo spill will have been avoided. Typical cargos that have spilled in the past to cause environmental mishaps include cargos such as oil, petroleum, chemical, or other hazardous materials. Of course the provision of a double hull adds to the complexity and cost of new construction.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,218,919, entitled “METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DOUBLE HULL PROTECTION,” issued on Jun. 15, 1993 to Krulikowski et al. describes the construction of an auxiliary hull, exterior to the primary hull of a ship, which has the capacity to absorb impact energy preventing primary hull puncture, which may be retrofitted to existing single hull ships. However, this external fitting of a new auxiliary hull outside the entirety of the existing single hull to form a double hull is costly and significantly changes the operational characteristics of the vessel. Installing a new auxiliary hull over the existing bottom hull also affects the draft and lowers the baseline of the tanker, significantly affecting flow into the propeller. Also, this design does not meet OPA-90 requirements for minimum hull spacing.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,189,975, entitled “Method for Reconfiguration Tankers,” issued Mar. 2, 1993 to Zednik et al. describes a method for converting a single hull tanker to a mid-deck configuration. As disclosed by Zednik et al., the mid-ship cargo section of the tanker is cut longitudinally along a horizontal plane well below the normal laden waterline. A spacer member including a new transverse mid-deck is interposed between the lower and upper portions of the mid-ship cargo section. A tank vessel having a mid-deck configurations are comprised of vertical cargo tanks (one above the other) and double sides, but do not include double bottoms and therefore are not as effective as double hulls, and do not meet OPA-90 requirements (e.g., this type of construction in the U.S. does not constitute a double hull and is considered to be a single hull).
Japanese patent JP 361024685 A, entitled “Method of Reconstructing Existing Tanker into Double Hull Tanker,” and Japanese patent 61-24686 both show a method of reconstructing an existing tanker into a double hull tanker wherein a new inner hull and new inner side hulls are installed inside the existing outer plating. However, this method decreases the cargo carrying capability while at the same time also increases the draft of the vessel due to the increased weight of the double hull, both of which are undesirable.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,170,420 B1 and 6,357,373 B1 disclose internal rebuilt double hull vessels and methods of accomplishing same. These patents disclose a process wherein the topside decking is cut and removed and a new inner hull is disposed internally over the existing single hull to form the new double hull. While this internal double hull process works well for barges, it is not as effective for tankers for several reasons including (1) the use of a raised trunk to help maintain the same cargo carrying capacity on a rebuilt barge causes more visibility and operational issues on tanker than on a barge; (2) tankers are generally three tanks across instead of two, which causes structural complications with the new double sides not normally experienced with barges; (3) tankers typically have more services (fuel, oil, electricity, water, cargo handling, ship handling, etc.) that would be disrupted during a rebuild by cutting up the deck to create a raised deck than would a typical barge; (4) the increase in draft due to the additional weight of the new double hull would be greater for a typical tanker than a typical barge due to hull shape of a tanker, which would adversely affects marketing and may limit the cargo in several ports; (5) the extra steel weight on a tanker would represent lost cargo weight unlike the barge where the extra draft is allowed by regulation and compensates for the extra steel weight; (6) hull bending moment issues arising from the concentrated weights in the tanker's engine room which typically do not exist on a barge; and (7) the method used on a typical barge retrofit is difficult to accomplish on a typical tanker due to access and interference problems and modification of existing ship structure and piping.
Another problem associated with performing double hull rebuilds of existing single hull tankers is the time that the tanker must be in a graving dock or dry dock. The longer the tanker must be out of the water to complete the double hull rebuild the greater the expense of the rebuild. Therefore, it is desirable to reduce the amount of time that the tanker must be in the graving dock or dry dock.
In addition, another problem or potential limitation associated with performing double hull rebuilds of existing single hull tankers is graving dock or dry dock availability. For example, the size of the tanker to be rebuilt may limit the shipyards that can satisfactorily perform the double hull rebuild and/or the method that can be used to perform the rebuild.
Still another problem associated with the double hull rebuild is caused by externally fitting a new side hull externally over the existing side hull. The new outer side hull installed externally over the existing side hull increases the beam of the tanker and can result in a speed loss for the tanker due to an increased resistance of the tanker as it passes through the water. The new outer side hull can also adversely effect the flow of water into the propeller.
Therefore, a need exists for a rebuilt tanker having a double hull having substantially the same cargo carrying capability at substantially the same or a reduced draft. The need also exists for an improved method of rebuilding an existing single hull tanker into a rebuilt double hull tanker that minimizes disruptions in existing ship services and accounts for access and interferences problems and modifications of existing ship structure and piping. Furthermore, the need exists for a method of performing the double hull rebuild that reduces the time that the tanker is in a graving or dry dock and also takes into account limitations in the size and availability of graving and dry docks. Moreover, the need exist for ensuring a smooth flow of fluid over the hull to help minimize any speed loss for the rebuild double hull tanker.